Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE: 20190506- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 48-electoral terrorism-etc
I came to Australia from The Netherlands unable to speak English and well I was interested in
the Dutch Grondwet (constitution) and so decided to check out the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK). And when you do not know the English language then you have to
check and double check the words to their meanings. It is because of this that I gained in that
regard a much better understanding about the constitution then most people do otherwise.
When I was an INDEPENDENT candidate (Jagajaga - in the 2001 federal election I held it was
utter and sheer nonsense for me to vote and allocate preferences to the very people I stood
against. I relied upon this also to succeed in my appeals on 19 July 2006. Fancy you go for a job
interview and the future possible employer ask you to fill in a form who you view should be in
line of a job by allocating preferences. This in a way shows the absurdity of a candidate having
to vote and may have his vote given to a person he may totally oppose. This denies the
POLITICAL liberty the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution!
Much is argued about Section 44 of the Constitution and I will address certain points below but
the legal principle of this section is to avoid/prevent some “foreign power” to have influence
upon the way the Federal Parliament deals with matters as well as Ministers.
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
For this one MUST read the Hansard constitutional convention debate records in how the
language was applicable at the time of Federation and also how this was in the United Kingdom
as after tall it is a British constitution.
Where then the constitution is specifically set up to prevent any “foreign power” to \have access
and/or interfere unduly with our Parliament and Governance then we must consider what at the
time of federation was a “foreign power” and not twist and pervert the meaning of words to mean
something different to what they are actually standing for.
It must be clear that as set out below the Commonwealth of Australia is within constitutional
context a “POLITICAL UNION” and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear (see
quotation below) this cannot be changed. Hence the High Court of Australia cannot override the
legal principles embedded in the constitution merely because it desires to do so. Any such
judgments are NULL AND VOID!
Likewise the legal principle to prevent any “foreign power” to influence our Parliament/
Government means that any purported registration of the Commonwealth of Australia with the
District of Columbia in the USA is a violation of our constitutional principles.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
foreign power; or
END QUOTE
It is very clear that where our federal government is a registered entity with the District of
Columbia then every Minister serving at the time is violating this Section 44 and hence ineligible
to be a Member of Parliament. While the Commonwealth can engage in treaties this only is to the
Government of the Day but no further:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE
Therefore a treaty entered into cannot provide the Commonwealth of Australia with any
legislative powers it doesn’t already have within section 51 & 52 of the constitution.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth is not entitled to have its own Commonwealth Electoral
Roll as it must rely upon the State electoral rolls and allow only those who are of the age of adult
as declared by the Commonwealth to vote in federal elections. The Framers of the Constitution
debated this also! One obtains the right to vote from a State (Territories are deemed quasi States)
and the Commonwealth cannot provide franchise to any person merely because it desires to do
so. Yet, I am aware of a person born in Victoria having become a Dutch national which
demanded to renounce any previous nationality, and then years later this person gained so called
Australian Citizenship (meaning actually in constitutional term to be a British Subject.) while
still holding the Dutch nationality. This person somehow can vote in Australian elections. This is
the nonsense that goes ion where the commonwealth allow for this when in fact constitutionally
it has no legislative power to determine who shall or shall not have franchise, a part of when it
legislate as to a “race”.
Again, because I had to learn the English language I couldn’t assume anything and for this did
my research for decades to discover what the true meaning and application of the constitution
really stood for. The High Court of Australia denied the usage of the Hansard recorded for about
70 years and as result numerous past decisions were wrongly decided. What I have been doing is
to research the true intentions of the Framers of the constitution besides what the constitution
itself states and by this we can show the so called unwritten parts of the constitution by
highlighting their statements as I quote them.
And the word “race” is not what might be claimed to be relates to what is commonly referred to
as the colour of skin as it includes a group of people of a certain nationality regardless of their
skin colour. However I will not in this document set this out as I have done so considerably in
previous statements which are accessible from my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
I will give an example how most people in Australia seem to attribute the story “the fable of the
dog and the shadow” to Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables where in fact the Framers of the
Constitution in the previous century already referred to this fable. I will quote below the Framers
of the Constitution and then a limited internet search, etc.
THIS IS VERY RELEVANT to if you do want to be a Member of Parliament you need to
understand and comprehend the true meaning of words and not what politicians and judges
pretend to make out of it.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
p5 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
I in the past have extensively written about numerous issues which can be located at
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and in fact defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (so the
AEC) in both appeals on 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 &
Q10897630 that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. I also challenged successfully in previous
proceedings in August 2005 the provision of AVERMENT (CEA1918) as well as by consent
was on 4 December 2002 granted orders of my Section 68 NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS that for example CITIZENSHIP legislation by the Commonwealth of Australia is
unconstitutional and hence ULTRA VIRES and this to be heard and determined by the High
Court of Australia. The latter however refused to hear and determine the matter. This in violation
to Section 75(v) of the constitution and violating the court order of 4 December 2002, again by
consent! Hence, unless and until if ever at all the High court of Australia hears and determines
the constitutional issues I raised they all remain legally applicable and all legislative provisions
challenged by me are and remain to be ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio. This is a legal principle.
While I do vote at times in federal elections at times I do not such as in this coming election and
the Commonwealth of Australia cannot ever again take me to court about this because they lost
on 19 July 2006 on this issue.
In my view the AEC (Commonwealth Electoral Commission) therefore are committing
constitutional terrorism to force electors to vote under the thread of fines where it is well aware
I defeated it upon this issue on 19 July 2006!
I will now refer to the Framers of the Constitution about the reference of the dog and his shadow:
p6 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-The last part of it goes with the first part. If you give up the control of a river you
must make provision against interference with the tributaries of that river. I look upon the Murray as a federal
river, and the only river in Australia that can really be called a federal river, and I am willing that it should be
under federal control, and that if any of the colonies-New South Wales, South Australia, or Victoria-did
anything to interfere with its navigation, the High Court of the Federal Parliament should have the right to
interfere. I am altogether in favour of the proposal of the leader of the Convention, and I hope that it will be
accepted, because it is the only way out of the difficulty. We all remember the fable of the dog and the
shadow.
Mr. SYMON.-The right honorable member must not quote constitutional authorities.
END QUOTE
The Dog and the Shadow. Aesop. 1909-14. Fables. The Harvard ... https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/3.html
IT happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in
peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying ...
https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/3.html
QUOTE
Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.
The Dog and the Shadow
IT happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in
peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook. As he crossed,
he looked down and saw his own shadow reflected in the water beneath. Thinking it was another
dog with another piece of meat, he made up his mind to have that also. So he made a snap at the
shadow in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of meat fell out, dropped into the water
and was never seen more.
“BEWARE LEST YOU LOSE THE SUBSTANCE BY GRASPING AT THE SHADOW.”
END QUOTE
http://www.english-for-students.com/The-Dog-and-The-Shadow.html
QUOTE
https://first-english.org/reading_understanding/fables/05_fable_dog_shadow_exercise.htm
QUOTE
A Dog and his Shadow
A dog was crossing a little river and had some meat in its mouth. Then he saw his own
shadow in the river but thought it was another dog. This "dog" also had a piece of meat in
END QUOTE
The Dog and his Shadow | Barney Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
https://barney.fandom.com/wiki/The_Dog_and_his_Shadow
The Dog and his Shadow is a children's story/an Aesop's fable that only appeared in Trading Places. When a
dog sees another bone, he greedily tries to open ...
QUOTE
in:
Stories, Fables, 1998
The Dog and his Shadow
The Dog and his Shadow is a children's story/an Aesop's fable that only appeared in
Trading Places.
Synopsis
When a dog sees another bone, he greedily tries to open his mouth and grab it. He did not
realize that he was looking at his shadow carrying the same bone. Once he opened his
mouth, the bone he was carrying fell into the lake. The dog learned to appreciate what he
already had.
END QUOTE
https://michelinewalker.com/2014/09/10/la-fontaines-the-dog-that-dropped-the-substance-for-the-shadow/
QUOTE
A “Learned” Eastern Tradition
In other words, Æsop’s fables were probably transmitted to Western fabulists by Phædus and Babrius, but
there is an eastern tradition, a parallel. When La Fontaine wrote his second collection (recueil) of fables,
published in 1678, he had read G. Gaulmin’s Livre des lumières ou la conduite des roys (1644) (The Book of
Lights or the Conduct of Kings). This book contains Pilpay’s fables. (See Panchatantra, Wikipedia.)
END QUOTE
We have Bill Shorten claiming to be the leader of the Opposition to be Shadow Minister and not
to be in an Office of Profit. However if one check the Hansard records of the 1891, 1897 and
1898 constitutional convention then whatever usage of the word “shadow” it was not about a
“shadow Minister”.
Hence, Parliament can make up whatever rules/legislation but in the end anyone who held a
position as some “shadow Minister” is in an office of profit. Hence, in my view Bill Shorten and
anyone else like him is in violation of Section 44 of the constitution. In my view his answer to
the questionnaire is misleading and deceptive.
Moreover when the Governor-General prorogues the parliament then effectively there are no
Members of the House of Representatives at all. Ministers (House of Representatives) within s64
can still operate as care taking Ministers but only for up to 3 months, by which time they must
have been re-elected and taken up a seat. Ministers in the Senate can remain Members of
Parliament regardless of when the election is held until their 6 year period has concluded.
However with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION all cease to be MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other provision is
made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies
which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses,
because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a
salary for their work, which they are not.
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament
who was being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus
his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle
a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not
to the judgment of the public.
END QUOTE
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE
It shows that Bill Shorten might pretend to be a Shadow Minister but he is not a member of the
federal executive and not entitled to a salary not being a Member of the executive. Yet, as I
understand it he and numerous others have been rorting the system to claim to be shadow
Ministers when constitutionally this doesn’t exist as a position, and claiming both a salary and
allowance. Indeed, most former members of the House of Representatives continue to claim
allowances and use (albeit unconstitutionally) taxpayers monies to travel about for electioneering
this even so they no longer are since the parliament prorogued to be Members of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. O'CONNOR: There are only two limitations to the Subjects which may come under the head of
"manner of choosing." One is that the member is to be chosen by the people of the States as one
electorate. That cannot be altered. The other is that the qualification shall be as stated for the House of
Representatives, and one man shall have one vote. Those two things are expressly provided for, and
therefore the "manner" cannot touch them. They really put the very basis upon which the Senate is elected.
Mr. BARTON: That is the clause that calls the Senate into being.
Mr. O'CONNOR: But the manner of conducting elections must embrace everything else, and the manner
of choosing, surely, would include the method in which the votes are to be recorded. The method in which
votes are recorded must allow for representation of minorities, alternative votes, or any other system.
Mr. BARTON: It would be perfectly open, for instance, for every Parliament to provide for the Hare
system of election. The tenth - clause provides that the Parliament may, in the first instance, prescribe an
uniform manner applicable to every State, of choosing members for the Senate; but, subject, to such
provision, the Parliament of each State may decide how to choose members of that body. It reserves
such a power to the Parliaments of the States. But there is reserved to the Federal Parliament a power of
control, which might well be exercised, in the case of certain difficulties or misdeeds arising, to take the
matter into its hands.
Mr. SYMON: I quite agree with Mr. Barton, that if a power is not taken away from the State it
remains with it. But I doubt very much whether this provision in the first part of clause 10 would cover such
an alteration as is implied in the introduction of the Hare system of voting. The other name for it is
proportional representation, and I doubt whether the manner of choosing the members of the Senate would
cover the alteration, either for a Federal Parliament or a State Parliament. My idea is that section is a limita-
p10 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
[start page 674] tion simply with regard to the manner of election, narrowly and technically understood.
There is implied, first the creation of a constituency, and second, the creation of the voters by means of the
qualification. which is also declared in the Constitution as that applicable to the more numerous Legislature
in the State. And it leaves untouched everything else. Therefore, if there were to be an alteration in the
way of introducing proportional representation, that power would remain with the States and be
exercised by them. There is nothing in this clause which enables the Parliament of the Federation to
alter the qualification of electors to the Senate unless by an alteration of the Constitution. Proportional
representation may or may not-I do not know whether it would or not-alter the principle of representation. If
it would, it would, therefore, be untouched by a provision merely dealing with the manner of choosing the
members of the Senate. I think, therefore, that the clause had better be left as it is, the result being, in my
view, that, whilst the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make aws which would dominate as to the
manner of choosing the members of the Senate, it would be for the States to deal with such a matter as is
involved in the Hare system of voting. It establishes a different system of representation under the name of
proportional representation.
END QUOTE
Again:
QUOTE
There is nothing in this clause which enables the Parliament of the Federation to alter the qualification
of electors to the Senate unless by an alteration of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
It is not the Commonwealth that provides the right to vote in federal elections but the state and
the Commonwealth can only determine the age of when a person is deemed to be an adult for
franchise purposes. Therefore any legislation that were to deny the person top vote in a federal
election would be unconstitutional. While the Commonwealth claims to be enrolled by a certain
date reality is that it is the State that decides this. Again, any legislation contrary to this is
ULTRA VIRES.
As with the dog and its shadow being of the Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables most people simply
assume that what they are told is correct and like ZOMBIES follow this. The same with that they
are accepting citizenship as a nationality which the Commonwealth specifically was denied to
have any legislative power for.
Hence, even if the states were to agree all together it cannot amend the constitution as such as
only within the provisions of Section 128 can this be achieved.
Actually in 2001 when I was an INDEPENDENT candidate I refused to compulsory vote and
hence the AEC litigation against me, in which they were comprehensively defeated.
As such I proved I could be a candidate and yet deny being forced to vote!
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
QUOTE
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that
provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those
whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose
claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral"
and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp.
356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE
Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes any secular
belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious
objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
“religious objection” have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
“religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as “objection”
without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear every elector of the more numerous House of the
State is entitled to be a candidate in a federal election and be elected into the Parliament. Section
44 of the constitution has specific exclusions but they only apply if the candidate having been
elected doesn’t get rid of any such limitations set out in Section 44 of the constitution. Therefore,
if a person is declared bankrupt, even after the election was held the person nevertheless can still
become a Member of Parliament (which he is not unless and until he takes up the seat elected
for) and prior to doing so, even the day before taking up the seat gets rid of the disability. As
such, if the person is declared bankrupt the day before on or after the election was held and then
petition the court to set aside the bankruptcy orders and does so successfully say the day prior to
taking up the seat in the parliament then he is entitled to be a member of Parliament as s44 did
not prevent him in that regard to do so. And any Office of Profit under the State is totally
irrelevant to any Commonwealth election. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear s44
(which previously was several clauses but combined in the end) was never intended to for
example have a Minister of the Crown of a State to stand as a candidate in a Federal election,
albeit if elected the Minister then has to decide to quit being a Minister of State or remain to be
so and not take up the seat elected for.
p13 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
* Why on earth would a Minister for a State stand for a federal election and being elected then
decline to take up the seat?
**#** Suppose that Minister XYZ like to become a Minister in a federal government but
discover that the party he belongs to is in the majority in the federal election and so if he takes up
the seat elected for he might merely attain a back bench position and this may not be what he
desires and so rather stay to be a Minister with the State he is with.
* That make sense. Do the Framers of the constitution explored this?
**#** Indeed they did, and they made clear that the Office of Profit related to the
Commonwealth and had absolutely nothing to do with the State. That is why a person such as
Phil Cleary in Wills was in my view well entitled to be and remain a Member of (the federal)
Parliament.
* But didn’t the High Court of Australia decide otherwise?
**#** To be very honest I wonder how on earth those judges ever were able to obtain a law
degree. They are simply placing themselves above the constitution!
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
Notice about the Freedoms of America as we have d if not the same a greater rights embedded in
our constitution.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
What we have is that the High Court of Australia in my view has been manipulating its judicial
powers such as in Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, etc, to have some outcome not at all justified
within the provisions of our constitution.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear (subject of being elected) any elector entitled to
vote for the numerous houses of the State is entitled to become a Member of (federal) Parliament
if elected and not violate s44 of the constitution.
Let say you are a builder and have a contract with the State Ministry of Housing to build houses.
Suddenly there is this federal election and the question would be can you repudiate your
obligations of the contract with the State Government merely to have a chance/opportunity to be
a candidate in a federal election? It would be a gross absurdity for you to do so not knowing if
p15 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
you are going to get elected. If you are elected then with writs to be returned say in 100 days it
would give you time to transfer your interest to another builder. There was in my readings of the
Hansard records no intention by the Framers of the Constitution that a person having an Office of
Profit with a State could not then be a candidate in a federal election.
I happen to specifically check the AECEF060 of William Richard Shorten and in my view he
should be investigated by the Australian federal Police for making a false/misleading statement.
This as his answer to question 14:
14 Do you hold an office of profit under the Crown, other than an office expressly exempt from
section 44(iv) of the Australian Constitution?*
(Office of profit under the Crown include, for example, many public sector jobs in Australia.)
https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/ministers-and-shadow-ministers.html
QUOTE
Fact sheets (Alphabetical order)
Fact Sheet – Ministers and Shadow Ministers [PDF 446kb, 2 pages]
Ministers
Federal ministers are members of the federal government who have been allocated an area of
responsibility for how Australia is run. This area of responsibility is known as a portfolio. The way in
which portfolios are created varies according to the government of the day. Some examples of
federal ministerial portfolios include health, environment, finance, education, defence, foreign
affairs, trade, community welfare, and immigration.
The Prime Minister and ministers are part of executive government. The executive is responsible
for developing government policy and putting government decisions into action. The Australian
Constitution gives the Queen executive power; in reality, it is the Prime Minister and ministers who
perform the work of the executive government.
There are usually about 20 ministers in the House of Representatives and about 10 in the Senate.
The most high-profile portfolios are given to the most experienced government members, and they
become part of the Cabinet. This is the main decision-making group within executive government
(see Cabinet).
Ministerial responsibility
Ministers are accountable for the actions of their department; if something goes wrong they are
expected to take responsibility for it.
Ministers and the Public Service are answerable to the Parliament. Any member of parliament can
hold the government to account by examining the work of any minister and their department. All
ministers must be able to appear in Parliament each day during Question Time and respond to
questions about how the government is running Australia (see Question Time).
Ministers and top-level officials from government departments may be required to attend Senate
estimates hearings to explain the work of the department (see Senate Estimates).
Each government sets its own ministerial code of conduct. This code is controlled by the executive,
not the Parliament. It is not a law or regulation and can be changed.
Shadow ministers
Shadow ministers are members of the opposition, chosen by the Leader of the Opposition.
Shadow ministers have the important responsibility of scrutinising (closely examining) the work of
the government and individual ministers. Each shadow minister concentrates on the work of a
Top-level shadow ministers form a Shadow Cabinet which meets regularly to develop these
policies.
If there is a change of government a shadow minister may become a minister. This is why it is
important for them to understand the work of the department they 'shadow' and consider how they
would run their portfolio.
Frontbencher
Ministers and shadow ministers are also referred to as frontbenchers, as they sit on the front row of
seats in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
PEO website
Fact Sheet – Backbenchers and Frontbenchers
APH website
House of Representatives Infosheet: The House, Government and Opposition
It is clear there are Ministers and those referred to as Shadow Ministers however that is a
creation of Parliament outside the provisions of the constitution and hence those so called
Shadow Ministers are in an Office of Profit!
Technically where the Senate last no more than 3 years then the House of Representatives should
hold by latest an election to allow for the return of the writs by the conclusion of the 3 year
period and not beyond it. This so that when half of the Senate seats expires each 3 years the
election can be held for both. It would be grossly unfair for a candidate to pay thousands of
dollars as a deposit and if elected then discover that a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION is used before
the Senator-elect can take up the seat and so his monies were wasted.
* I am aware this is a mere limited set out you just presented but still very informative.
**#** Those who so to say are sitting opposite of the Members in the government unlikely will
be aware about the constitutional issues I relate to. For example we had this so called Coco pop
or whatever its name was for taxation and the senate refused it. The next day the senate then
passed it when the independent Senator had made a certain deal. This is offending what the
Framers of the Constitution stated and embedded as a legal principle in the constitution!
* As usual you are backing up as to what you state and that is what I consider to be very
important.
**#** I am concerned that candidates continue to be wrongly denied to be Members of
parliament for having some British entitlement when our constitution provides for us to be
Subject of the British Crown.
What the Commonwealth can do is to deny an alien to become a citizen in refusing the person to
land, as was in the Ah Toy case. When special legislation is enacted against a race then all
persons of that race will be automatically denied franchise, this obviously is to prevent them to
overturn the legislation.
Again, there is a lot more to it all but to me any candidate who is a British subject is entitled to
be a Member of Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia if elected for this.
It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that British subjects of other parts of the
world would be entitled to become a Member of the Federal Parliament. We are under the British
Crown and where Section 128 referendum cannot even alter this then surely the High Court of
Australia lacks any judicial powers to do so.
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand
over our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment
will not be accepted.
Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-I think the Commonwealth should keep in its own hands the key of its
own citizenship. Some colonies are somewhat colourblind with regard to immigration, other colonies may be
somewhat deficient in their ideas as to naturalization. If we place in the hands of any state the power of
forcing on the Commonwealth an obnoxious citizenship, we shall be doing very great evil to the
Commonwealth. This power should be in the hands of the Commonwealth; it should itself possess power to
define the conditions on which the citizenship of the Commonwealth shall be given; and the citizenship of
the Commonwealth should not necessarily follow upon the citizenship of any particular state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to objections from
members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is right in not applying [start page
1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to
their ordinary definition as subjects of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character,
inasmuch as citizens of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the
Constitution, we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a citizen or subject of
the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power conferred in these wide terms would
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think
the honorable member intends to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.
END QUOTE
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
better not be left out of the bill altogether.
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
p21 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of
federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on
the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is
to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again
and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised
as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
END QUOTE
The High Court of Australia simply possesses no judicial powers to override by backdoor
manner or otherwise the constitution.
It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British
subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the
Imperial authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That
is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” We have a High Court of
Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth
by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of
Australia committed TREASON
*.I think you are on the right track.
**#** Consider that our constitution deals with citizenship being the place of abode not your
alliance to a particular country. The fact that the British Parliament and other countries have
decided to use the term citizenship referring to a nationality doesn’t alter what it stands for in our
constitution. It would also b be totally absurd that we could have a person as a Member of
parliament and then some country decides to legislate that if you have a forefather who was
previously, even hundreds of years ago, a national then all descendants in eternity will be
deemed to be a national regardless that they never resided in that country. By this effectively
denying any person to be secure being a Member of Parliament.
p22 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
.
Hansard 15-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
I. Who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence,
to a foreign power, or has done any act whereby he has become a subject or a citizen, or entitled to the rights
or privileges of a subject or a citizen, of a foreign power; or
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or remission of the
sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A number of
German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power, especially those who
have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the
words "or who has not since been naturalised as provided in clause 30"?
Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties may be in
force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the very lines I am
citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the same rights and privileges as
he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in
another country, who becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high
powers, he should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come
back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
END QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment which
has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that we make an
alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these disqualifications shall
operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making provision
exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power?
Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the adoption of the
constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament. I would ask hon. members also
to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance, the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may
change. It may be very different twenty years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony."
p23 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
As Sir Samuel Griffith has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some
colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In New Zealand
felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that which have taken place in New
Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause
as it stands you will put it in the power of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the
qualification by making a change in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal
parliament, and that it ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the
construction of the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter.
The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of allegiance. The first
part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of it. For instance, it says, "Any person
who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power." The clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting
as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed. But, once a
man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because a thing is done. The
amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in which the matter should be put would be,
until the removal of the disqualification caused by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the
clause; but the wording of the clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to
the federal parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted.
The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to
limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that
should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in
the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as
these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be
rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were
undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony
or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a
violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one
thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the
commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the
case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into
parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first
subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their
interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. Persons who have taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country
for the purpose of joining in legislation.
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is
larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked
well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the
constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to
be supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is
quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it
is quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the
electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such
a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a
state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might
be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing
them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some
cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been
attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they
offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to
avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I
END QUOTE
.
It is therefore very clear that if a person makes an oath of alliance to another country then that
person cannot be trusted. However one cannot claim that because some forlorn country may
legislate to grand someone a nationality without the person’s knowledge and/or acceptance than
this person somehow can be denied his constitutional rights where this person may never even
have any knowledge of the past of any forefathers doing. And when we now have that even IVF
children can be denied, albeit I view wrongly, to be a member of parliament merely because
some biological grandparent might have provided for some rights to me is absurd.
The real solution is that if a person naturalize to become a British Subject, as you cannot become
an Australian national without it (considering that the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing
more but a political union -see above stated) that any person who naturalize is required to give up
any other nationality. I understand that the Dutch have this requirement, albeit you can
afterwards re-apply for your former nationality to the country you originated from.
As for those who allegedly have dual nationality by birth, they can renounce this is they are
elected and before they take up a seat in the federal Parliament as to avoid any possible conflict.
For example they can make a declaration: I will renounce all and any nationality and other
entitlements of any foreign country I am entitled to by birth or otherwise.
The person then can after that accept the seat elected for.
I view that it is absurd fort anyone to renounce any dual nationality merely to be a candidate
which may never lead to being elected. I accept however that as the Framers of the Constitution
made clear that once a person makes an oath to a foreign country then this person could never be
accepted as being a Member of federal Parliament. This as to make an oath essentially is a
commitment whereas a right by birth is not a deliberate commitment.
When a person makes a conscious and deliberate act to become a national of another country
then I view the person can never be trusted. However, if a person obtains certain rights by birth it
is an unconscious act.
One also should understand that ample of Australians (within the provision of being a British
subject) may engage in business ventures with foreign countries, being it holding share holdings,
etc. In fact former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in my view was ineligible to be a Member
of (federal) Parliament where he held off shore accounts as technically it violated Section 44 of
the constitution. This as by holding off shore accounts in so to say tax heave ns he was subject to
another countries provisions. The same applies to anyone one else holding interest in foreign
countries, being it business or residing there. For example Julian Assange was in my view
ineligible to be a Senate candidate in a previous federal election as he was a citizen (residing) in
the Ecuadorian embassy and as such could not be regarded a citizen in a State/Territory (within
the Commonwealth of Australia to have electoral entitlements..
*. It seems to me that Bill Shorten when he was a Minister actually was in violation of the
provisions of s44 of the constitution as by the registration with the District of Columbia he and
other Ministers were/are subject to a “foreign power”, the USA
**#** In my view the High Court of Australia is politically charged and for this denied my
applications to be heard and determined.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
Much is claimed that the British Parliament altered the meaning/application of “British subject”
to exclude Australians, however this is meaningless because an ordinary legislation cannot
override a constitution.
Neither can the purported Australia Act 1986 (UK) & (Cth) have any influence upon what the
constitution stands for this as no Parliament can deny a subsequent Parliament its legislative
powers. Hence the British parliament at the time had no such legislative powers to have the
purported Australia Act 1986 (UK) enacted. Neither did the Commonwealth of Australia possess
such powers to deny the grantor (British Parliament) it legislative powers.
It is very obvious to me that the High Court of Australia was possessed with wanting to be the
most senior court and oust the Privy Council but to me that is unconstitutional. In fact the High
Court of Australia being recorded with a business number I view also violated the constitution. It
instead of being an independent judiciary it now is so to say a mere puppet on a string for the
politicians.
* And you definitely will not vote in the coming federal election?
**#** I exercise my constitutional rights and they were upheld in both appeals on 19 July 2006
and there is absolutely nothing they can do against me.
* But Olga (your wife) does vote?
**#** Only because she doesn’t want the problems of court cases at her advance age. So she is
terrorized in voting.
I deplore such terrorism upon electors! Again there is a lot more to it all but the above stated may
give some indication there is a lot wrong.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)